Obama says we need to "spread the wealth around"

unsung

darthvedder81 wrote:

You want fair? Then we need a flat tax.

C'mon man. We are talking about the government here, that simply makes too much sense.

prytoj

unsung wrote:

The redistribution of wealth is why people don't want him. Why should we work harder so those on welfare can continue to be funded? Communism must be making a comeback.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

while equitable distribution of wealth sounds nice, it rings awfully hollow coming from a guy who has accepted $430+ MILLION in campaign contributions from corporations. He is DOMINATING the mainsrteam media. Does no one see the hypocrisy?

words, deeds, what's the difference?

unsung

Indeed. I also find it funny that a nuclear power corporation is one of his largest donators even when Obama said he is against new nuclear plants until there is a way to dispose of the waste.

I wonder if there is something hidden going on?

Strangest Tribe

darthvedder81 wrote:

Huh? I honestly have no idea what you just said. Your first paragraph makes no sense.

My point is the majority of non-reported income also exists at the upper echelons of wealth. The subject "income" is subjective. True it can be stated that the top 5% pay most of the taxes in this country but we aren't talking about wage earned income which mostly comes via the middle class.

I'm referring to how a wealthy man can put a swimming pool in his backyard and find a way to write it off as a business expense.

prytoj

not exactly true. While the wealthiest find ways to limit their tax burden (relatively) much better than most of us, they are not the only ones hiding income.

And anyone in the service industry, or who has an LLC, will tell you that.
The write-offs are available to everyone. I'd write off my pool if I could afford one in the first place, wouldn't you?

And, you have to make pretty good scratch before you PAY any federal income tax at all. I made like 80 grand last year and paid not one dime of federal income tax.

Open

unsung wrote:

The redistribution of wealth is why people don't want him. Why should we work harder so those on welfare can continue to be funded? Communism must be making a comeback.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

Actually, it appears that people do want him.

_

darthvedder81 wrote:

We don't need government food and healthcare assistance. We really don't. Private charities and organizations are more than capable even in a bad economy to help people. I volunteered in a Salvation Army a couple years ago and we had to throw out expired food and medication. Oh and the place was half empty. I asked the manager there if this was a fluke and he said it was pretty common in shelters throughout the Twin Cities.

I don't think you can take your one experience and extrapolate that we therefore don't need Medicaid or welfare.

My experience is that many, if not most, of the people at the state hospital where I work need Medicaid or the like to get basic healthcare. Sometimes people don't qualify because of technicalities and we search high and low for ways to get them covered. If it's as easy as you suggest to get care without government assistance, why do we have such a hard time finding private assistance for our patients?

SundaySilence

MrMerkinball wrote:

BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day
and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw
them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20.

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would
be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off t han before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'*

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and
they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking
overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

This was not written by an economics professor:

http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

"Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics." Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it."

prytoj

scb wrote:

I don't think you can take your one experience and extrapolate that we therefore don't need Medicaid or welfare.

My experience is that many, if not most, of the people at the state hospital where I work need Medicaid or the like to get basic healthcare. Sometimes people don't qualify because of technicalities and we search high and low for ways to get them covered. If it's as easy as you suggest to get care without government assistance, why do we have such a hard time finding private assistance for our patients?

why do they need the Medicaid? It'd be a whole lot easier to get the help you need if the people who really need it were the only ones asking.

I'm sure your going to tell me that most of the people you are talking about are not able-bodied citizens, but I know better. The elderly, the handicapped, the impoverished youth already have government health options.

Private insurance needs to do better, but the gub'ment is not the solution.

unsung

Open wrote:

Actually, it appears that people do want him.

Sorry.

Correction: SANE people.

SundaySilence

A small amount of redistribution is good for the economy. Money at the top becomes stagnant while money at the bottom is spent faster and moves through the economy quicker. What we should be doing is looking at history and other countries to find out what redistribution rates make for a better economy.

_

prytoj wrote:

why do they need the Medicaid? It'd be a whole lot easier to get the help you need if the people who really need it were the only ones asking.

I'm sure your going to tell me that most of the people you are talking about are not able-bodied citizens, but I know better. The elderly, the handicapped, the impoverished youth already have government health options.

Private insurance needs to do better, but the gub'ment is not the solution.

Most of the people I'm talking about are very young children. And you're right, they do have a government health option - it's called Medicaid.

stupidcorporatewhore

here's a question for you conservatives...

What DO you want to pay for? I think we have to pay for one of these..

education, welfare, or a livable wage. you may come to the conclusion welfare is cheaper.

if it makes you feel better you should think of welfare as insurance.

basically you are paying the poor not to break into your house or beat you over the head and take your wallet.

prytoj

I'm glad we solved this problem together without further gub'ment intrusion.

unsung

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

here's a question for you conservatives...

What DO you want to pay for? I think we have to pay for one of these..

education, welfare, or a livable wage. you may come to the conclusion welfare is cheaper.





basically you are paying the poor not to break into your house or beat you over the head and take your wallet.

I'll pay for education. As long as it is for citizens and legal immigrants only.

As far as the breaking in your house part... see the gun thread.

mammasan

unsung wrote:

Give them money?

How about earn it?

You want to fix the financial mess you don't need to tax more. We need to STOP SPENDING MORE.

If you feel it is acceptable to tax people who work for a living more so that those who refuse to work can have more you are either too lazy to work or you are INSANE.

I don't agree with Obama's tax plan but this statement is just ridiculous. I earn less than $250,000 a year and every dollar is earned through hard work. Now if Obama's tax plan will allow me to keep more of that hard earned money so be it, it's mine to keep.

Secondly have you ever lived on welfare? Do you know what it like to have to live off of government hand outs? When my parents first came to this country they needed government assistance in order to survive. They didn't enjoy it and trust me they where not living in anything remotely considered luxury. Yes there are people who abuse the system, they are lazy and refuse to stand on their own two feet, but should the thousands upon thousands of people who truly need these programs just to survive deserve to be punished because of the actions of a few. Social programs consume far less than the wasteful spending employed by our defense department but I never see people bitch about that.

unsung

mammasan wrote:

Secondly have you ever lived on welfare? Do you know what it like to have to live off of government hand outs? When my parents first came to this country they needed government assistance in order to survive. They didn't enjoy it and trust me they where not living in anything remotely considered luxury. Yes there are people who abuse the system, they are lazy and refuse to stand on their own two feet, but should the thousands upon thousands of people who truly need these programs just to survive deserve to be punished because of the actions of a few. Social programs consume far less than the wasteful spending employed by our defense department but I never see people bitch about that.

Are your parents now on their feet? If so have they quit collecting the check from the government? If that is also yes then kudos to them, some people have pride. The rest think they are owed something.

I agree that there are people that need it. If they are not working I can understand because of the economy right now. I'm for helping people who need it I don't think it is too much to have them take drug tests first. That is not unreasonable. As a taxpayer I'd like to know that I'm not funding an addict who continues to abuse drugs.

The ones that are making an honest effort should have no reservations about this. The ones that do, well they don't get a check.

Uncle Leo

unsung wrote:

Perhaps you don't understand the point I'm trying to make. I'm against the re-distribution of wealth.

Then by definition are you not against all tax and government service? I would guess your HH income is six figures. On the other side of the tracks is a family who has a HH income of $35,000. But the military, fire and the cops do just as much to protect them as you. You are essentially paying for their protection. They are taking your wealth and serving others with it.

prytoj

unsung wrote:

I'll pay for education. As long as it is for citizens and legal immigrants only.

As far as the breaking in your house part... see the gun thread.

I think I love this champion of liberty.

The fact is something like haf of all people on welfare are single unwed black mothers. for what it's worth. that's easily researched. In this light I think welfare is a much more complicated issue than spending and probably for another thread.
welfare and spending are two seperate issues in my view.

The idea that any democrat would LOWER your taxes is intellectually dishonest.

An Obama presidency is unacceptable.

unsung

Uncle Leo wrote:

Then by definition are you not against all tax and government service? I would guess your HH income is six figures. On the other side of the tracks is a family who has a HH income of $35,000. But the military, fire and the cops do just as much to protect them as you. You are essentially paying for their protection. They are taking your wealth and serving others with it.

I am against taxation, but I understand reality calls for some. I guess I'm against unnecessary taxation, unfair taxation. It is the same reason I'm against donating to large entities like the United Way, I don't believe in everything they give money to. I do donate to them, only because they are the only option where I'm employed. However I have the ability to choose where my money goes.